1) You all, and reasonably so, ask theists how the "loving, caring" God of the Bible could allow genocide and murder and rape and large-scale destruction (and so on and so forth). You say that if He existed, He wouldn't allow those things.
My question is this: What evil could God allow that wouldn't be a problem for you all?
If He prevents genocide, you all would say He can't exist because He allows large-scale natural disasters. If He prevented those as well, you all would say He can't exist because He allows destructive sicknesses. If He prevented those as well, you all would say He can't exist because He allows murder. If He prevented that, you all would say He can't exist because He allows rape.
This would logically continue until the greatest evil in the world was a paper cut... and what loving, caring God would allow paper cuts?
You all make very good points, which is why the problem of evil is one of the biggest points against Christianity.
But tell me, at what evil would atheists stop and say, "You know, a loving, caring God AND (insert evil) can coexist. The problem of evil wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the greatest evil out there."
Would you all only be satisfied with NO evil? A LITTLE evil? Etc.
2) Also, here's some food for thought... maybe God has prevented GREATER evils than the ones He has allowed. Maybe He is just shaking His head at you all and thinking, "They could never know this... but I've already prevented three nuclear wars from happening, several worldwide epidemics, and a few meteors from wiping out the human world. Stuff that would've been much worse than what they are going through now."
You all say how a loving God and evil can't coexist... but you have to at least admit you could never know if God is preventing even greater evils from happening. Doesn't this give you a little pause?
For example, You don't like genocide... but God may have prevented someone from being strong enough to implement worldwide slavery. Etc.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"My question is this: What evil could God allow that wouldn't be a problem for you all?
If He prevents genocide, you all would say He can't exist because He allows large-scale natural disasters. If He prevented those as well, you all would say He can't exist because He allows destructive sicknesses. If He prevented those as well, you all would say He can't exist because He allows murder. If He prevented that, you all would say He can't exist because He allows rape.
This would logically continue until the greatest evil in the world was a paper cut... and what loving, caring God would allow paper cuts? "
This is, quite honestly, a slippery slope fallacy. However, since I do think the argument has some merit, I will respond. The argument hinges on three major premises:
God is all-powerful
God is all-knowing
God doesn't actually want evil to occur
If any, and I mean any, of these there aren't true the argument crumbles. However, if all three are true, there is simply no logical reason for the existence of any evil. I don't mean some evil, I don't mean a little evil, I mean NO(ZERO) evil.
"Also, here's some food for thought... maybe God has prevented GREATER evils than the ones He has allowed."
Given the three premises offered, it would be a contradiction. He doesn't HAVE to allow ANY evil, he doesn't want to allow ANY evil, and since none could happen without his knowledge; there shouldn't be ANY.
"Maybe He is just shaking His head at you all and thinking, "They could never know this... but I've already prevented three nuclear wars from happening, several worldwide epidemics, and a few meteors from wiping out the human world. Stuff that would've been much worse than what they are going through now."
Would an omnimax fireman, who could save ANYONE, be considered either good or benevolent if he let half the people he could have saved at no risk to himself die? Nope.
"You all say how a loving God and evil can't coexist... but you have to at least admit you could never know if God is preventing even greater evils from happening. Doesn't this give you a little pause?"
Not really, as the three descriptions of this supposed god literally mean he could stop all evil at will in a way that would hurt or have any negative consequences, I have no need to consider that god can't or wouldn't stop all evil if he wanted. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that one or more of the three descriptions is wrong, they could all be wrong, or god just doesn't exist.
Thanks for the feedback! Okay, so you don't believe an "all-powerful, all-knowing, evil-hating" God can coexist with the evil we see in the world. You believe that if He did exist, He would've prevented the evil we see today. This makes sense.
Where does free will come into this? Is it possible for God to have those three attributes (power, knowledge, care) and coexist with evil if He's given us free will?
The argument looks like this: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and hates evil. However, He has given us the choice of whether to do good or evil (free will). We've chosen to do evil things with the free will He's given us. So He can coexist with evil because of free will. He hates evil and wants to prevent it, but we choose evil and He allows it because of the freedom He's given us.
We can't have free will if God prevents us from doing evil. God's given us free will, therefore we can choose to do evil. That's why a powerful, knowledgeable, and evil-hating God can coexist with evil.
In philosophy, this is called the free will defense (naturally). It is the common theist response to the problem of evil. What do you all think?
"In philosophy, this is called the free will defense (naturally). It is the common theist response to the problem of evil. What do you all think?"
Free will is a lie just like your god.
Did your god give you free will to live for ever and choose not to die or be judged?
NO, so god did not give you free will at all( if he existed), actually he puts more restrictions on believers then he puts on non believers.
Apologetics try to grab to anything which looks good and claim that god gave it to us.
So even the ability to make a choice, now is given by god and portrayed like a special gift.
Even if everybody knows that we do not have much of a choice in most things in the universe.
If i had a choice I would make everybody immortal, but sadly I do not have the free will to do that, i am restricted by this limited human body that dies.
Free will is just an excuse for someone who does not have anything to say.
Jeff, you didn't have a choice to be born. You didn't have a choice in what Adam and Eve did, but you do have a choice if you want to be immortal or not. One man brought sin into the world but one Man gives us an opportunity to be saved from it. You don't have to be limited to a human body that dies one day. This is your choice. The devil hates free will choice because he chose wrong and will now suffer for it forever and he wants you with him. He HATES free will for a human being because we have a choice to be forgiven and live forever, a choice he will never get since he made the wrong one and Jesus did not die for him, he was not tricked, he was in the presence of God and as soon as he chose in his heart to disobey, sin was found there. I am sure that he wishes God would have created him a robot, but God likes choice and I am glad because God knows I love Him because this was MY choice.
Jesus Christ you need therapy.
You made like 500 differenct unsupoorted caims in that paragraph.
"Jeff, you didn't have a choice to be born." exactly, NO FREE WILL
Changing subject about your claimed choice that I have now, is irrelevant.
"One man brought sin into the world but one Man gives us an opportunity to be saved from it."
What are you smoking, sin is an invention, that does not exist in reality.
In fact you call many different things sin, because anything that you think is wrong by your god, must be sin.
There is no saving you from your responsibilities, the "god giving his only son" concept, is the scapegoating concept, which is an evil concept.
The idea of putting your sins on a goat and leave it to die in the desert, but allegorically placed on a man instead.
"The devil hates free will choice because he chose wrong and will now suffer for it forever and he wants you with him."
LOL, if the devil existed he must love free will, how else would he stand a chance to get you in hell?
You do not even get the basic common sens things about your theology.
"but God likes choice and I am glad because God knows I love Him because this was MY choice."
If the devil chose wrong and was punished with hell, then he had no choice.
If god threatens you or Satan with hell if you do not choose him, then you had not choice at all.
Basic common sens leaves no question, you use the same common sens in the court of law.
Else rapists, killers, etc... would all go free otherwise.
Check this to see what choice your god is really giving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw
Adam and Eve...holy shit, what a crock!!! Because theists have no sensible explanation for GOD allowing atrocities ( Both by His hand, and human beings) they have come up with this "free will" nonsense. I find it very difficult to believe that an almighty God would allow horrendous atrocities against innocent people, both believers and non believers, especially defenseless children who don't understand ANY of this mumbojumbo because He wants to give everyone "free will." God is supposed to "love everyone" believer or not...so are you going to tell me that God will only protect the believers? because if so, that is quite discriminitory, which is against everything that He preaches...I wouldn't want THAT type of God!! And if He is supposed to "love everyone" then why does He have rules to discriminate against certain people and their lifestyles?? If God created EVERYTHING, then why would He create a devil? Or, is that the ONLY thing He didn't create? ( because it is bad) And whether He did, or didn't create the devil, why couldn't He find it in His heart to...LOVE HIM!!? Please, LISTEN to what we're talking about!!! It's BEYOND crazy!!
Can you give an account of the meaning of lying please?
Can you give an account of the meaning of lying please?
"Thanks for the feedback! Okay, so you don't believe an "all-powerful, all-knowing, evil-hating" God can coexist with the evil we see in the world."
You got it, the existence of evil is a stark logical contradiction to the description of this supposed deity, making them mutually exclusive propositions.
"You believe that if He did exist, He would've prevented the evil we see today. This makes sense."
Well, to be fair, it applies only if your god is all three of the premises are true. Other types of gods could exist, though I don't believe any do, but they do not suffer the pitfall of the problem of evil.
"Where does free will come into this?"
It doesn't. A rape victims will is suppressed just as fully and completely as a rapists would be if such a god stopped them from raping people, so why not suppress the will of evil instead of allowing the will of the innocent to be taken away? It is a problem, because either god values the free will of the rapist above the raped, or he doesn't care.
"Is it possible for God to have those three attributes (power, knowledge, care) and coexist with evil if He's given us free will?
Nope.
"The argument looks like this: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and hates evil. However, He has given us the choice of whether to do good or evil (free will). We've chosen to do evil things with the free will He's given us. So He can coexist with evil because of free will. He hates evil and wants to prevent it, but we choose evil and He allows it because of the freedom He's given us."
Even if it was logically consistent, which it isn't, it doesn't explain the horrible pain and suffering caused by NATURAL disasters, does it? Even if you wanted to ignore the contradiction of allowing the suppression of a persons free will by another person, which is a stark contradiction, it still would explain some of the worst disasters in human history.
"We can't have free will if God prevents us from doing evil."
Why not, he can do anything, why couldn't he prevent us from WANTING to do evil? Seems to me that us, and the universe, are just as he must have intended for them to be, which pretty much destroys the description given.
"God's given us free will, therefore we can choose to do evil. That's why a powerful, knowledgeable, and evil-hating God can coexist with evil."
Except that it doesn't really make sense. This being, having all knowledge and power, could create the universe it wanted. It is the author of the terms and conditions of the universe, right? So if he wanted us to go left instead of right at a crosswalk, it would be as simple as creating such a universe. He also could have created a universe with free will an no evil, but he didn't, which begs a question doesn't it?
"In philosophy, this is called the free will defense (naturally)."
Yeah, I have heard it before.
"It is the common theist response to the problem of evil. What do you all think?
It doesn't actually solve the problem, it adds another contradiction! If god made the exact universe it intended to make, and we are all doing exactly as he intended us to do when he created it, how is there free will? In such a universe everything is predetermined to go as initially planned, making free will an illusion, and making the whole concept of choice a joke.
"Even if it was logically consistent, which it isn't, it doesn't explain the horrible pain and suffering caused by NATURAL disasters, does it? Even if you wanted to ignore the contradiction of allowing the suppression of a persons free will by another person, which is a stark contradiction, it still would explain some of the worst disasters in human history."
I answer this with specific Christian theology, as opposed to general philosophy any theist can use. God made the world perfect, and we purposefully decided to rebel against Him. He cursed the world to punish us, and we see the results of OUR rebellion. You all don't like it... but that's the Christian answer to the problem of natural disasters.
"Why not, he can do anything, why couldn't he prevent us from WANTING to do evil? Seems to me that us, and the universe, are just as he must have intended for them to be, which pretty much destroys the description given."
The purpose of free will is to allow the person, if he or she so chooses, to obey or disobey the person giving him or her free will. The other things atheists often dismiss is the fact that free will gives a guy or gal the option to WILLINGLY obey God, which is what He wants in the first place. So if God prevented us from doing evil... He wouldn't be giving us free will. If our only option was to do good and obey God... free will wouldn't exist.
"Except that it doesn't really make sense. This being, having all knowledge and power, could create the universe it wanted. It is the author of the terms and conditions of the universe, right? So if he wanted us to go left instead of right at a crosswalk, it would be as simple as creating such a universe. He also could have created a universe with free will an no evil, but he didn't, which begs a question doesn't it?"
I answer this the same way I answer questions like "could God make a married bachelor? How about a square circle? Could He create a rock He couldn't lift?" The problem with questions like those three is that a married bachelor, a square circle, and a too-heavy rock are the same as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0"... it doesn't exist and literally has no meaning. Could God make a "wfairbfwrefhpu0"? That question is meaningless because "wfairbfwrefhpu0" means absolutely nothing. How does this apply to what you just said?
You said that if God was all-knowing and all-powerful, He could create a world where we could have both free will and no evil. This world would be the same thing as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0" and a square circle... it is absolutely meaningless and is not non-computable. Free will HAS to exist with the possibility of evil... otherwise a world with one and not the other would be a real and possible as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0".
Both you and I will agree that a "wfairbfwrefhpu0" has no meaning and is impossible to create. Asking for a free world with no evil is no different.
"I answer this with specific Christian theology, as opposed to general philosophy any theist can use. God made the world perfect, and we purposefully decided to rebel against Him. He cursed the world to punish us, and we see the results of OUR rebellion. You all don't like it... but that's the Christian answer to the problem of natural disasters."
He cursed the world with natural evil? That even FURTHER contradicts the description given, as it sets god as the progenitor of some of the evil of the world, absolutely demolishing the claim of omnibenevolence. Either your theology is wrong or god simply isn't omnibenevolent.
"The purpose of free will is to allow the person, if he or she so chooses, to obey or disobey the person giving him or her free will. The other things atheists often dismiss is the fact that free will gives a guy or gal the option to WILLINGLY obey God, which is what He wants in the first place. So if God prevented us from doing evil... He wouldn't be giving us free will. If our only option was to do good and obey God... free will wouldn't exist."
When you set up a system were another persons exercise of free will compromise other peoples, it becomes a problem. As explained earlier, an omnibenevolent being would prevent the suppression of a rape victims free will, instead of staying neutral or siding with the rapist. Omnibenevolence actually dictates that it MUST do the right thing, which would be to stop the rape, not allow it to continue. In any given scenario where it is allowing the suppression of a victims will, it is NOT doing the right thing, and it would still be allowing the destruction of one sides free will.
"I answer this the same way I answer questions like "could God make a married bachelor? How about a square circle? Could He create a rock He couldn't lift?""
Actually, an all-powerful being could. It could change the definitions of married or bachelor, square or circle, and even couldn't or lift to ones that aren't mutually exclusive.
"The problem with questions like those three is that a married bachelor, a square circle, and a too-heavy rock are the same as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0"... it doesn't exist and literally has no meaning."
Except that an all-powerful entity could choose the meaning of all these things and make them compatible. Lookie, I just defined wfairbfwrefhpu0 as a really bad argument, now it exists and has a meaning!
""Could God make a "wfairbfwrefhpu0"?"
I suppose it could, but why would it want to make a bad argument. Oh, maybe it changed the definition of bad, and now bad arguments are a good thing!
"That question is meaningless because "wfairbfwrefhpu0" means absolutely nothing."
It does now, I gave it one, and I am not even the all-powerful author of the universe. Are you saying I am more powerful than god?
"How does this apply to what you just said?"
It doesn't, really. You are attempting to limit this gods power, and in doing so are stripping it from being ALL-powerful. God can do anything... Except that... And that... Oh, that too... Not that... Nope...
All of a sudden, it is less a god, and more like any other being having to operate withing the bounds of OUR language and THIS universe. It can't do everything, all of a sudden, only some specific things that happen to be consistent with our imperfect perceptions and conventions. Your god just seems to get more and more human with every argument...
"You said that if God was all-knowing and all-powerful, He could create a world where we could have both free will and no evil."
Yep, it sure could, as nothing in free will demands evil. There was supposedly a time, according to your own theology, where man and the universe was PERFECT(free of evil) and man had free will. This means either your religion is wrong, you are wrong, or god isn't as described.
"This world would be the same thing as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0" and a square circle... it is absolutely meaningless and is not non-computable."
I would agree that this world is a really bad argument, especially for the position you are trying to make.
"Free will HAS to exist with the possibility of evil... otherwise a world with one and not the other would be a real and possible as a "wfairbfwrefhpu0"."
Perhaps free will has to exist for evil to exist, but evil does not have to exist for free will to exist. Thus your argument is invalid.
"Both you and I will agree that a "wfairbfwrefhpu0" has no meaning and is impossible to create."
No, we wont, because if I can give it a meaning, surely your god could.
"Asking for a free world with no evil is no different."
No, it isn't. My free will is already limited by the terms and conditions of the universe he authored, there are a number of things I simply cannot do, why isn't rape one of them? Why not murder? How is it he can limit my ability to fly or survive in space, yet give me the ability to kill? How does that make any sense? It doesn't.
As always, I love the feedback! :)
1) "Yep, it sure could, as nothing in free will demands evil"
Very true! I'm not saying evil HAS to exist with free will, I'm just saying the POSSIBILITY of evil has to exist with free will. The world was originally perfect, but there was always a possibility of evil (which made free will possible).
2) Let me try again. My friend, let me ask you... how long is the smell of a rose? While each word (with the understood meanings) individually make sense, when you put them together in that order, the question becomes worthless and meaningless.
When you ask, "Why didn't God create a world with free will and no evil?" That question makes no sense and is meaningless. While each word is true and real and has an understood and accepted definition individually, put them together in that order and the question makes no sense.
Now, if you want to go around changing definitions to make certain word-orders mean something (as you did), you can go do that. But before you want me to accept them, make sure other people who speak English do as well! No one has an accepted meaning for "wfairbfwrefhpu0", so despite you arbitrarily just creating a definition for it (a bad argument), I don't have to accept it. "wfairbfwrefhpu0" still has no meaning to me, despite you arbitrarily giving it a definition.
Could God, as you say, make a world with free will and no evil? Yes! But we would have to change our accepted and understood meanings of "free will" and "evil". If we made "free will" mean "ice cream" and "evil" mean "unicorns", God truly has made a world with free will and no evil! But with the definitions we currently have of those two things, God cannot do that.
A married bachelor is ridiculous because of contradictory definitions. So is a square circle. Etc.
Now, if you wanna go around changing definitions so that different things can be possible... you can do that. That just makes debating difficult because communication relies on two people understanding what the other person means when they say something.
3) As for your example of the rape victim not having free will, that is true! But notice, the rape victim isn't choosing to do an action. Free will only comes into play when someone consciously chooses an action. Someone is acting upon that rape victim, and the raper is the one who has free will.
The question of free will doesn't come into play when someone is being acted upon. As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to do something, then free will matters philosophically. The rape victim's free will comes into play if we were talking about a response to the raper. Does she scream or try to fight back or do nothing? Report the raper to the police or let it go? Etc. The rape victim does have free will in terms of a response.
4) As for your last paragraph, I think you confuse "moral" free will and "the physical world". God made a physical world with physical laws (gravity, etc). You don't have free will in those areas (which is why you can't survive in space and fly). However, the moral realm is completely different. You have choices to do good or evil because God gave you that option. God didn't give you an option to break physical laws. Why? I don't know, but I do know the world morality is different than the world of physics.
"Very true! I'm not saying evil HAS to exist with free will..."
You do, when you state that free will requires evil. If free will does not necessitate evil, then there actually is nothing impossible at all in a universe with free will made in such a way that no one would ever choose evil. A universe in which free will existed and everyone chose to do good is absolutely possible, so god could have created it, but he didn't.
"...I'm just saying the POSSIBILITY of evil has to exist with free will."
Not really, a lot of situations and choices don't actually intersect with morality, we would still be able to choose which side to lay the coin down on with predetermined morality. Free will would remain, for the most part, intact. We just wouldn't be able to rape or murder any more than we would be able to swim to mars.
"The world was originally perfect, but there was always a possibility of evil (which made free will possible)."
Then it wasn't actually perfect, not really.
"Let me try again. My friend, let me ask you... how long is the smell of a rose?"
Depends. Roses only keep their smell for a certain period of time after being removed from the plant, and air conditions and temperature can effect the length it lingers, why?
"While each word (with the understood meanings) individually make sense, when you put them together in that order, the question becomes worthless and meaningless."
Only if you lack the capacity to consider it meaningful.
"When you ask, "Why didn't God create a world with free will and no evil?" That question makes no sense and is meaningless."
Nope. If free will can exist without any evil, which you argue it once did, then the question remains relevant. Why didn't god make a better universe?
"While each word is true and real and has an understood and accepted definition individually, put them together in that order and the question makes no sense."
Only if you can do mental gymnastics and actually avoid the implications, which you are trying terribly hard to do, but I won't let you.
"Now, if you want to go around changing definitions to make certain word-orders mean something (as you did), you can go do that."
..and if I can do that, then why can't your god seem to?
"But before you want me to accept them, make sure other people who speak English do as well!"
True, but can you honestly state that your god would have the SAME problem?
"No one has an accepted meaning for "wfairbfwrefhpu0", so despite you arbitrarily just creating a definition for it (a bad argument), I don't have to accept it."
No you don't, and people reject the standard definitions of words all the time, so meaning is pretty much relative anyway. But, technically, someone DOES have a meaning for "wfairbfwrefhpu0", making it a bad example.
""wfairbfwrefhpu0" still has no meaning to me, despite you arbitrarily giving it a definition."
Good for you?
"Could God, as you say, make a world with free will and no evil? Yes!"
Then why doesn't he?
"But we would have to change our accepted and understood meanings of "free will" and "evil"."
We would? God can't do it? This god guy seems rather less powerful all the time...
"If we made "free will" mean "ice cream" and "evil" mean "unicorns", God truly has made a world with free will and no evil!"
Don't talk bad about unicorns, they are some of the nicest flufflebars I know!
"But with the definitions we currently have of those two things, God cannot do that."
Check, your god can't even change definitions, I get it, he is more impotent than I am.
"A married bachelor is ridiculous because of contradictory definitions. So is a square circle. Etc."
Got it, your god could have made the universe one dimensional(squares and circles are identical in one dimensional space), and can't even change vocabulary. This "all-powerful" sounds like a total drag, I am glad I am not "all powerful" or I wouldn't be able to do anything either.
"Now, if you wanna go around changing definitions so that different things can be possible... you can do that."
I know, I am so glad I am not "all powerful" and incapable of even doing that much.
"That just makes debating difficult because communication relies on two people understanding what the other person means when they say something."
Technically, we also define anything likely to be misunderstood at the outset, that way we can communicate without identical definitions.
"As for your example of the rape victim not having free will, that is true!"
Nope, it has free will, its ability to express it is just taken away. You know, the same thing you are complaining would happen if god intervened? This means free will is being interfered with either way, so why value the rapists free will above that of the raped?
"But notice, the rape victim isn't choosing to do an action."
It is trying, its free will is being forcefully suppressed by another agent, which is identical to the reason you state god can't interfere.
"Free will only comes into play when someone consciously chooses an action."
Nope, the other still has free will, its ability to act it out is just suppressed.
"Someone is acting upon that rape victim, and the raper is the one who has free will."
They both have free will, the rapists free will is just being valued more than the raped by someone with the ability to do something about it.
"The question of free will doesn't come into play when someone is being acted upon."
Only if you think that free will ceases to exist when your ability to act on it is compromised, which would be silly, because then no one would have free will because the universe restricts our ability to do things all the time.
"As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to do something, then free will matters philosophically. The rape victim's free will comes into play if we were talking about a response to the raper. Does she scream or try to fight back or do nothing? Report the raper to the police or let it go? Etc. The rape victim does have free will in terms of a response."
Good to know, the raped persons will ceases to exist, but they can do things. That is a weird paradigm you have there...
"As for your last paragraph, I think you confuse "moral" free will and "the physical world". God made a physical world with physical laws (gravity, etc). You don't have free will in those areas (which is why you can't survive in space and fly). However, the moral realm is completely different."
Why? Because god made it that way? This doesn't answer the question at all. If he made swimming to mars impossible, why could he have not made rape impossible? He is supposedly the author of the universe and all in it, why?
"You have choices to do good or evil because God gave you that option."
Why? You can have free will without them, so why give the option?
"God didn't give you an option to break physical laws. Why?"
Because he hates square circles more than rape?
"I don't know, but I do know the world morality is different than the world of physics."
Not really, not when dealing with an omnimax deity that creates universes, he could make them alike. A world where rape and murder are impossible would not violate all free will, and it is silly to think it would. It is quite literally no less silly than me saying that god violated my free will by making it impossible for me to flap my arms and fly to the store.
"Depends. Roses only keep their smell for a certain period of time after being removed from the plant, and air conditions and temperature can effect the length it lingers, why?"
*sigh* By "long", I thought you honestly knew I meant "distance", not "duration"... so yes, "How long is the smell of a rose?" still doesn't make sense. Unless you purposefully misunderstood me, which leads to this quote:
"Don't talk bad about unicorns, they are some of the nicest flufflebars I know!"
Haha, whenever the person I'm talking to makes comments like this (when I'm trying to be serious while the other person isn't), I know the conversation isn't getting anywhere.
In the end, I'll have to agree to disagree :) This will be my last comment on this particular comment trail of this forum post.
1) The "free will" defense means that free will and the POSSIBILITY of evil have to exist for free will to exist, even if the actual presence of evil isn't required.
You all use the "three O's" argument against God's existence (the problem of evil). If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omni-benevolent (all-loving), God would prevent evil from existing. Evil does exist, therefore God does not.
The free will answer goes like this: God has all of those "O's", but He's also given us a free will to do good (obey Him) or evil (disobey Him). This allows Him to coexist with evil. You and I differ as to whether or not free will can exist if we can't choose to do evil. You say it can, I say it cannot.
2) What about natural disasters? When God gave us free will and we chose to do evil (rebel against Him), God allowed the universe to start to decay and get worse. Natural disasters are the result of a world that is going through entropy.
3) What about the rape victim's free will? The rape victim has free will, but the free will isn't as strong as the raper's in that particular situation. Just like we have free will, but ours isn't as strong as God's and He can override us whenever He wants.
It's been wonderful talking, as always! Thanks for taking the time to chat :)
""*sigh* By "long", I thought you honestly knew I meant "distance", not "duration"..."
How am I supposed to know that? If I was going to ask for distance, I would have asked how FAR a rose could smell.
"... so yes, "How long is the smell of a rose?""
Depends on conditions, they can be smelled farther away on either hot or humid days.
"still doesn't make sense."
It can, it depends.
"Unless you purposefully misunderstood me."
No, you just falsely assumed the question would be meaningless to me. It isn't.
"...which leads to this quote:
"Don't talk bad about unicorns, they are some of the nicest flufflebars I know!"
Haha, whenever the person I'm talking to makes comments like this (when I'm trying to be serious while the other person isn't), I know the conversation isn't getting anywhere.
In the end, I'll have to agree to disagree :) This will be my last comment on this particular comment trail of this forum post."
As you wish, I'm sorry you find my defense of unicorns offensive.
"1) The "free will" defense means that free will and the POSSIBILITY of evil have to exist for free will to exist, even if the actual presence of evil isn't required."
Free will doesn't exist then, because many other possibilities are denied us. Free will is limited, as you have admitted, to within certain parameters already. You are pointing at a parameter that isn't denied us, and assuming that all choices would fall within it, they don't as I have pointed out. This means that free will could exist with the parameter of evil being denied us, it would limit our options nearly as much as physics does now, but it would not destroy free will in the already limited context we have already. Your argument, quite simply, is invalid.
"You all use the "three O's" argument against God's existence (the problem of evil). If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omni-benevolent (all-loving), God would prevent evil from existing. Evil does exist, therefore God does not."
Not precisely, I argue that it either does not exist as described, or doesn't exist at all. The problem of evil does not, in fact, argue against the existence of a god, only specific descriptions of it.
"The free will answer goes like this: God has all of those "O's", but He's also given us a free will to do good (obey Him) or evil (disobey Him). This allows Him to coexist with evil."
If, and only if, it values the possibility of evil above good. In such a case, I am not sure I would consider it omnibenevolent.
"You and I differ as to whether or not free will can exist if we can't choose to do evil. You say it can, I say it cannot."
I think I have already addressed this.
"2) What about natural disasters? When God gave us free will and we chose to do evil (rebel against Him), God allowed the universe to start to decay and get worse. Natural disasters are the result of a world that is going through entropy."
Um, no, that isn't actually how entropy works. The "decay" in entropy is actually a consumption of usable heat energy within a closed system, and describes how eventually all of that heat energy will be used up. The Earth is NOT a closed system, it GAINS energy, so natural disasters would still exist even if entropy did not.
"3) What about the rape victim's free will? The rape victim has free will, but the free will isn't as strong as the raper's in that particular situation. Just like we have free will, but ours isn't as strong as God's and He can override us whenever He wants."
I don't need to do anything here, you have proved my own point quite well, even if you don't realize it.
"It's been wonderful talking, as always! Thanks for taking the time to chat :)"
No problem. I hope you change your mind about unicorns, even the bible says they are swell.
Ilovequestions - "My question is this: What evil could God allow that wouldn't be a problem for you all?"
If you want to insist that he is all knowing, and all powerful, then none. However, if you were willing to concede he isn't all knowing and powerful; then the problem of evil would disappear (and we'd have to abandon this argument).
Tell me what you think of my response above :) It's basically a longer version of what I would've written to you.
It is not possible to construct a system with a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; where the system contains evil.
It is not possible to construct a system with an being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; where the system also contains other beings with free-will. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/gods-plan?page=1#comme...
If you believe there is evil in the world, you must abandon at least one of the 3 traits assigned to god.
If you believe humans have freewill, you must abandon at least of the the 3 traits assigned to god.
There is no evil in the natural world. It only exists in the supernatural world where an omnipotent, omniscient deity creates man out of love and then allows him to suffer natural calamities despite that love. By that definition, evil is the conduct of the god itself. Atheists do bother themselves with such notions.
GREATER evils than the ones that exist? WHAT IN THE WORLD WOULD THAT BE?!! Along with the issue of the "evils" not being prevented, what about the good? Dosen't "God" ALWAYS get the credit when something good happens? If something, or someone, has the power to make good happen, then don't they also have that same power to allow, or prevent bad? How can something be responsible for JUST the good, and NOT the bad? What power is responsible then for the atrocities...the Devil, as I often heard it explained... well the devil, or whatever power, is overpowering God MUCH TOO OFTEN...I'd start looking for a stronger God!!
Oh, you know, nuclear world wars and the sort :) We haven't had those yet
Essentially it's Epicurus' debate:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing to?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing to prevent evil?
Then where cometh evil?
Is God neither willing or able to prevent evil?
Then why call him God?
The philosophical ideas of good and evil are mutually exclusive, one cannot exist where the other does. Afterall, you can't commit evil acts for the greater good. It's very contradictory. However, like you, most theists then say something along the lines "Well, God gave us freewill, and we choose evil."
That argument, one where we must argue whether our freewill could possibly exist in conjuction with "God's will or plan", would force us to set aside the debate of whether evil can exist alongside an "All Good, All Powerful God". But let's not set aside the good vs. evil arguement just yet.
It's fine and good to say that human's choose evil... I will agree that, humans are the source of all evil. But also we are the source of all good. In fact, we kind of created both. Good and Evil are both human concepts that continue to evolve as we try to get along with each other.
And therein lies the very reason why good and evil exist, have always existed together, and will always exist. Throughout history both concepts, seek to explain the world, and how we relate to eachother, both on the micro and macro levels, by splitting human interactions into "good" and "evil" based on how well we judge the effects of our actions. Which, as we are able to look further ahead, makes splitting actions into these two groups considerably harder. Further convoluting the matter... is the fact that in cases where one idea cannot be shown to be superior to another, these terms are bandied about to promote one idea and detract from the other. Such as the case of Socialism vs. Capitalism.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments :)
"The philosophical ideas of good and evil are mutually exclusive, one cannot exist where the other does."
The thing for some people is that they think that "good" and "evil" are qualities like "tall" and "small"... they can't exist without the other. You can't have a tall person without a short person! Therefore some think you can't have "good" without "evil".
However, there are others that believe that the qualities of "good" and "evil" are like the qualities "blue" and "red"... one can exist without the other! Blue can still exist even if red doesn't. I fall into this camp.
For me, "good" is perfection, and "evil" is anything less than that. You can have perfection without imperfection, therefore you can have "good" without "evil".
You'd probably disagree with me. What do you think?
I see a few inapplicable "you alls" in there, but in any case,
My answer is: None.
Well, frankly, it seems just about everyhting is permissable right now; genocide, rape, murder, slavery, large-scale natural disasters, catostrophic disease, famine, sunburn...
What isn't on the roster? Because the current evidence suggest that, if there is a god, he's game for anything. And it would be exceedingly difficult to thank someone with the power to stop all pain for 'only' having given us this current excruciating ammount.
I feel this question is directly aimed at distracting and redirecting the argument from the point the atheist are trying to make. atheists are trying to point out the contradictions made by theists , by making observations about the world we see and the clams made in the bible about the power(s) of god.
there isn't any allowable evil that I would consider ok no matter who it was committing the said evil . no one wants to be murdered raped or have there property stolen damaged or any other kinds of evil happen to them so why would anyone think that there is a allowable limit ? and the further into the question I read the more it becomes about proving if he is real or not . . . ?
this argument is tailored and flawed in my opinion. I don't understand the viewpoint of the writer or where the conversation was going. but I do think the whole thread has been summed up perfectly by "Travis Paskiewicz " .
In the beginning (when I wrote this post), I wasn't even arguing about God's existence (that was a bunny trail I've been following). I was just curious as to how much evil would God have to eliminate before atheists would stop using the "problem of evil" against Christians :) It seems like "all of it", from the responses!
Yep, all of it. And yet he has not eliminated all of it, hence why there is the problem of evil.
'For me, "good" is perfection, and "evil" is anything less than that.'
I wrote a small program to calculate square roots of 15+ digit numbers. It's not perfect but I wouldn't call it evil, it just needs some work.
My friend, I'm talking about morality :) not the physical world. I guess mathematical "perfection" would be completeness or wholeness or whatever, but I'm not talking about mathematical perfection :) This is the fallacy of equivocation; what we mean by "perfection" is different.
Pages